Please present convincing reasons based on scientific findings, that naturalism is more compelling than theism.

For most of my adult life, I was a sincerely practicing Christian. But I never doubted the legitimacy of Darwin. So to answer your current question directly, I probably don’t understand your OP question. Certain things just don’t compute in my admittedly limited mind.

Philsophical naturalism helds, that the natural world is all that exists. No supernatural power exists.
My initial question was ? what evidence is there for such a scenario ?

Maybe if nature were more “super,” you’d be asking a legitimate question. Psychology and neurology completely explain humanity’s ancient magical ways. They linger on today out of ignorance of psychology and neurology, which are not typically taught in any depth in K-12 school. If you want to learn more about these two fields, then we can converse with each other productively.

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

They linger on today out of ignorance of psychology and neurology, which are not typically taught in any depth in K-12 school. If you want to learn more about these two fields, then we can converse with each other productively.

I’ll look at thread titles that address psychology/neurology as they relate to human invention of deity, Lindoia, both here and at Harris’ other discussion forum:http://www.project-reason.org/forum/

Maybe others who are following this thread will also chime in with thread recommendations for you to consider. Since late 2004, a lot of such discussion has taken place not only here but on other forum sites. A lot. I’ll be happy to recommend a few threads for you when I have some time, tomorrow.

For me personally, when I needed to find a new way to make a living I started a venture that ended up drawing heavily on psychology and certain aspects of neurology. I’d never studied those subjects in school, but two psychologist friends took me under their wing, so to speak, and apprenticed me to the extent that I needed to be trained. As a result, I did a lot of reading and in the process shed my faith. Of course there was much more to the story, but that’s essentially it.

I’ll get back to this and meanwhile encourage you to seek out and look over threads that seem to address your questions.

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

VeronicaS, your patience is formidable and far more than she deserved.
Lindoia, your stubborn refusal to even entertain the possibility that VeronicaS has been trying to help you see more clearly is formidable,
you do yourself a massive disservice. Hope you open your mind one day.

hi Nick

are you openminded ?

Yes very. I was open to the possibility while reading this thread that you may actually have been a serious poster and not some goal post moving, coherent answer avoiding troll. This was why i commended the person who tried to engage your ‘points’.
You have been answered on each of your ‘points’ patiently and clearly. You have chosen to ignore these answers or just claim they have no validity because they don’t conform to the stories you like. Btw ‘naturalism’ is science based from the start, your opening question= “Please present convincing reasons based on scientific findings, that naturalism is more compelling than theism.” already shows you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Why don’t you provide convincing science based reasons why ‘theism’ ( creationism ) is more compelling than naturalism? You can actually break open a closed mind on nature you see, as it actually can be bumped into. Nature does not care what you think is true when it comes down to hard facts.

If you cannot see that scientific answers ( as non dogmatic and open to change as new data emerges as they are ), are more compelling than ” Duh God dunnit” thats your problem.

Good morning, Lindoia. I have to agree with you in the sense that I have trouble processing your OP question. It’s a fine question, but the way it’s phrased lacks specificity. For instance, theism may according to scientific findings remain the more compelling approach compared to atheism. I have no way of knowing the answer to such a question simply because of a lack of precision. It’s too wide-open a question for me, at least. And your use of the word naturalism throws me for some reason.

Would you mind if I rephrase things and start a new thread on the Project-Reason forum? I’ll probably post it in the Faith subforum, and title it something like, “An attempt to address Lindoia’s concerns.” I feel more comfortable in the P-R forum because it’s a more active forum. Where we are now is as quiet as a library these days.

Subjects I have in mind to cover:
resurrection of Jesus
temporal-lobe seizures
seizures in general, comparing treatments of modern doctors with ancient theists
arguments coming from C.S. Lewis
prophesy trickery
Frans de Waal’s naturalistic morality

Please keep in mind that scientists don’t typically set out to debunk religion, though some these days might be doing that. Rather, scientific findings can simply shine a light on ancient ignorance. Occam’s Razor is important in these kinds of discussions because much within theistic claims can be dismantled only by pointing out alternative possibilities to events that happened so long ago that historians struggle even to report things. Much is lost to history, and science tends to rely on fine detail. So please keep your expectations within this framework, and try to have fun with it.

I’ll return here later in the day with a link to the new (currently nonexistent) thread, unless you tell me you’re not particularly interested in my restructuring of your concerns. Please let me know if you’re okay with what I’m proposing, and I’ll continue if you seem agreeable.

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Yes very. I was open to the possibility while reading this thread that you may actually have been a serious poster and not some goal post moving, coherent answer avoiding troll. This was why i commended the person who tried to engage your ‘points’.
You have been answered on each of your ‘points’ patiently and clearly. You have chosen to ignore these answers or just claim they have no validity because they don’t conform to the stories you like.

Others do have ignored my patient answers as well. So ??!! Just because i do not agree with the answers, i am not serious. Is that right ?

Btw ‘naturalism’ is science

No , naturalism is a philosophic standpoint.

based from the start, your opening question= “Please present convincing reasons based on scientific findings, that naturalism is more compelling than theism.” already shows you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Why don’t you provide convincing science based reasons why ‘theism’ ( creationism ) is more compelling than naturalism?

because that is not the topic of this thread.

If you cannot see that scientific answers ( as non dogmatic and open to change as new data emerges as they are ), are more compelling than ” Duh God dunnit” thats your problem.

the scientific facts we know already, are advanced enough, to make secure conclusions about the cause of all that exists. And that conclusion in my view is : the incredible intelligence that we do find in nature, its complexity, its beauty , the molecular machines , like the flagellum, the irreducible complexity as found in the cell, the information stored through dna, the fact that we do have conscience, and many other issues, do point clearly to a powerful creator. no further, new data needed, to make secure conclusion.

Good morning, Lindoia. I have to agree with you in the sense that I have trouble processing your OP question. It’s a fine question, but the way it’s phrased lacks specificity. For instance, theism may according to scientific findings remain the more compelling approach compared to atheism. I have no way of knowing the answer to such a question simply because of a lack of precision. It’s too wide-open a question for me, at least. And your use of the word naturalism throws me for some reason.

Would you mind if I rephrase things and start a new thread on the Project-Reason forum? I’ll probably post it in the Faith subforum, and title it something like, “An attempt to address Lindoia’s concerns.” I feel more comfortable in the P-R forum because it’s a more active forum. Where we are now is as quiet as a library these days.

Subjects I have in mind to cover:
resurrection of Jesus
temporal-lobe seizures
seizures in general, comparing treatments of modern doctors with ancient theists
arguments coming from C.S. Lewis
prophesy trickery
Frans de Waal’s naturalistic morality

Please keep in mind that scientists don’t typically set out to debunk religion, though some these days might be doing that. Rather, scientific findings can simply shine a light on ancient ignorance. Occam’s Razor is important in these kinds of discussions because much within theistic claims can be dismantled only by pointing out alternative possibilities to events that happened so long ago that historians struggle even to report things. Much is lost to history, and science tends to rely on fine detail. So please keep your expectations within this framework, and try to have fun with it.

I’ll return here later in the day with a link to the new (currently nonexistent) thread, unless you tell me you’re not particularly interested in my restructuring of your concerns. Please let me know if you’re okay with what I’m proposing, and I’ll continue if you seem agreeable.

feel free to open a new thread. I just think you should keep to just one subject, rather than various at the same time.

At one time, not too long ago, people thought that our universe ended somewhere in the ocean beyond the horizon they could see, and above the sky, where they also couldn’t see, had to be “Heaven”. Science has enabled us to systematically push far beyond those limits, all the while resisting the urge to proclaim, without evidence (or in effect, what we can see), that there is some particular thing beyond the limits we have subsequently gotten to.

Lindoia, you and the ideas you are ensconcing yourself in are not resisting the urge.

The problem with your assertions and all of your references is that they use science as merely a springboard for their non-scientific attributions and conclusions.

It does not follow –not logically, nor by common sense, nor certainly by rigorous scientific analysis - that because things are the way they are, they must have been initiated/caused/purposed/designed by some creator.

Wait, let me guess your response: “Says who? How do you know?”

Says who? As cited by VeronicaS, just the most expert minds in the relevant fields of science - that’s who.

The folks you keep referring to are people who take the credible work of real scientists, practicing real science, and then abduct it and try to portray it as supporting the fanciful notions that satisfy their wishful impulses.

Yes, we understand. It feels warm & good to believe that everything was designed, that your life has a purpose, that there is something bigger and smarter than you, and that it has a plan.

The difference is that most of us here, I expect, are willing to accept – in all reasonable likelihood, following where the evidence leads – that there isn’t such a thing. We are content and patient enough to know that we don’t know what is just beyond the current reach of science

Unfortunately, the websites you refer to skip science at a very critical step. Your preferred theistic view appropriates all the certainty that science provides but none of the uncertainty. When faced with the unknowns that are inherent to scientific inquiry, or are merely awaiting discovery, you and your enablers can’t handle it and default to an imaginative, but clearly non-scientific, conclusion.

You betray the incongruence of your position when you say things like “[nature]... demonstrates the wisdom, good taste, and incredible intelligence of the creator.” What?! That conclusion is in no way scientific. Your suggestion is that theistic explanations are somehow singularly self-evident and unavoidably logical. At best, they are glaringly speculative.

For you, in the absence of immediate evidence, the only possibility(and seemingly, an imperative) is a theistic explanation, of which, you are certain. In contrast, most atheists won’t say that a creator is absolutely impossible, but that it is just highly improbable. While we keep looking beyond the next horizon we still don’t see any signs of “Heaven”.